Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 13:27 on 11 November 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems because this is not a talk page. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article

The following is regarding the summary for Final Fantasy XII, the featured article for March 16, 2011. The second sentence in the article states "Released in 2006, it is the twelfth title in the Final Fantasy series." However, I feel that there should be some rephrasing of some sort. Final Fantasy XII is, as defined by its numeral, the twelfth main, numbered title in the series. However, many other titles preceded it that are not numbered (or numbered oddly, such as Final Fantasy X-2). These include Final Fantasy Tactics, Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, Final Fantasy Adventure and Final Fantasy Mystic Quest. While some would argue that games such as Final Fantasy X-2, Final Fantasy Adventure and Final Fantasy Mystic Quest are all spin-offs and should not be considered part of the series, it should be indicated that each of the games in this series are quite loosely based upon one another and are little more than spin-offs of the games before them. If someone indicates that similarities in game play are what defines a series, then one must still change the aforementioned sentence Final Fantasy XI works completely differently than the rest of the games, as does Final Fantasy XII itself. This leaves us with ten games, while our definition of a series as its game play pulls Final Fantasy X-2 back into the lot, leaving us with eleven games, though Final Fantasy XII itself is no longer part of the series, making this part of the article irrelevant. tl;dr: Change "Released in 2006, it is the twelfth title in the Final Fantasy series." to "Released in 2006, it is the twelfth main title in the Final Fantasy series."Ravenicus451 (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question there: the games you mention are all spin-offs.  狐 FOX  01:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You would need to get a consensus on the article talkpage and have it changed in the article before we update it here. As Fox says, they are spin-offs so don't seem to count in the official numbering system. Woody (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Errors in In the news

Template:ITN-Update

• Nuclear power station item is outdated. Like the tsunami item (which was changed at my urging to a more vague description), the nuclear power station item is now outdated. The story has moved on and ITN is lagging severely. I suggest changing the wording to something less specific that still says there is an ongoing crisis, but that won't date so badly. Unfortunately it is less easy to do that for this item than the tsunami, and events have been happening so quickly here and can still change at any minute. The reactors (and the spent fuel affected by the fire in reactor 4) are (hopefully) cooling all the time, though, so in a few days it should be clearer what is happening. Currently, though, the fire in reactor 4 is what should be mentioned. I would urge any admin who regularly updates ITN who is reading this to simply read the article and judge what needs updating here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Whilst the current blurb was for the previous spike in radiation levels, there seems to have been another one and further evacuations so the blurb is accurate for the story as it is now. Woody (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• I wanted to point out that the workers at the station did not evacuate -- they left for a short time, then returned when radiation levels decreased. --Magmagirl (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Tsunamis A tsunami is a series of waves so tsunamis is inaccurate. Marcus Qwertyus 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

Reporters: please first correct today's or tomorrow's regular version.

Errors in Did you know?

The first item "... that the rare Floridian flowers Robin's mint and Garrett's mint used to be in the same species as the scrub balm (pictured) until they were re-classified as separate species in 1981 and 1989, respectively?" is incorrect. It should read "... that the rare Floridian flowers Robin's mint and Garrett's mint were considered to be the same species as the scrub balm (pictured) until the were described as new species in 1981 and 1989, respectively?" Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Any other problems

Please report any other problems on Talk:Main Page.